(PC) Lynch v. Doe

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 11, 2020
• Docket: 1:09-cv-02097
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 ANTHONEY LYNCH, Case No. 1:09-cv-02097-AWI-JDP 7 Plaintiff, ORDER TREATING THE MAGISTRATE 8 JUDGE’S SEPTEMBER 26, 2019, ORDER AS v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9 AND ADOPTING THOSE FINDINGS AND JOHN OR JANE DOE, et al., RECOMMENDATIONS 10 Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 75, 76, 78, 79) 11 12 Plaintiff Anthoney Lynch is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights 13 action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 14 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 15 On September 26, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued an order denying motions to vacate 16 and appoint counsel. (Doc. No. 78.) Because that order was entered post-judgment, the Court of 17 Appeals remanded with instructions that the district judge may treat the order as findings and 18 recommendations. (Doc. No. 84.) Additionally, after remand from the Ninth Circuit, Plaintiff 19 filed a motion for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s order denying vacation of the 20 judgment and appointment of counsel. (Doc. No. 79). The Court will follow the Ninth Circuit’s 21 suggestion and treat the Magistrate Judge’s September 2019 order as a findings and 22 recommendation. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the 24 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case, including Plaintiff’s October 2019 motion for 25 reconsideration. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and 26 recommendations (Doc. No. 78) to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. There is 27 no basis for Rule 60(b) relief or reconsideration of prior orders. Plaintiff has failed to 28 wOAOe EVV EUS EOP VERA MVOC Of POO Ve hte Oy Oe

1 | demonstrate either that he is entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6), or that his motion was timely 2 | under Rule 60((c)(1). See Lopez v. Ryan, 678 F.3d 1131, 1135-38 (9th Cir. 2012); Lal v. 3 | California, 610 F.3d 518, 524 (9th Cir. 2010). Further, the Court agrees that there is an 4 | insufficient basis for appointing/seeking voluntary assistance of counsel. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ 5 | motions will be denied. 6 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The September 26, 2019, order, (Doc. No. 78) is converted to findings and 9 recommendation; 10 2. The findings and recommendation (Doc. No. 78) is ADOPTED; 11 3. Plaintiff's motion to vacate and re-enter judgment (Doc. No. 75) and motion to 12 appoint counsel (Doc. No. 76) are DENIED; 13 4. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 79) is DENIED; 14 5. The Court will not accept any further motions for reconsideration relating to this order 15 or Document Nos. 75 and 76; and 16 6. This case remains CLOSED. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. □□ 19 | Dated: _ September 10, 2020 —= ZS Cb □□ — SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28